AgdaPkt 2007-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 12 'Housing Bottom Line' Continued from Page 1... The full critique is available at wv,!y,,',g_2.ll.if9lnia(;;'liYJ=jD.9n(~,l2.Qm. A segment of the critique is located below: "The building industry funded 'Housing Bottom Line' study examines a specific class of new home and attempts to calculate how that home and its occupants use state and local puNic se;vices and pay taxes. But a substantial portion of Californians do not fall into the study's focus of new home-owners with substantial incomes. Moreover, some methods and assumptions of the study are ii/-considered. The study examines a median priced single family home (in each of several defined regions in California) with residents having incomes high enough to purchase that house and therefore using public services and making tax payments relative to that income level. The study implicitly assumes that the home will result in new jobs for the residents of the home that are 1) located in the city where the home is built and 2) at the income leve/needed to purchase the home (i.e. not retail, construction, etc.). The study essentially credits new residential development with all new business and economic development, crediting new housing with the tax revenues paid by businesses as well as their costs of public service. The study generally assumes that these new l1igher income residents pay for public services (through state and local taxes) but don't 'use' many of them (i.e. prisons, social services, mental health, etc.). They have private health insurance so they don't rely on publicly funded social services and they don't even benefit from their 'use" by others. The study implies that the growth in population that comes from new residential development does not increase the demand for publicly funded social services or the prison population. The study implicitly assumes that the fiscal effects of a new house don't change over time: once a 'new house, ' always a 'new house, ' never an 'existing house' even though the study concludes that existing homes cost more in state and local public services than they generate in tax revenues. The study examines only this 'median house' and does not consider the wide variations over time and place. Substantial differences in circumstances mean that the example described by the report does not accurately describe any real circumstance. The real problem with the fiscal impacts of residential development in California concerns affordable housing and infi/l development, where higher costs are not matched by sufficient on-going revenues. This study does not address these circumstances." 'Public Safety Press Conference' Continued from Page L. Although the three-judge panel did not issue a decision and elected to set a trial date for sometime in Jan. or Feb. 2008, media interest in the press conference was high. Reporters from a number of Bay Area television stations (including KRON and the local affiliates of NBC, FOX, Univision, ABC and NBC) covered the event. In addition, public radio reporters from KQED and KPCC attended, along with reporters from World Journal and the San Francisco Daily Journal. During the conference, La Mesa Council Member Dave Allan, who chairs the League's Public Safety Policy Committee, discussed AS 900, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2007, addresses prison overcrowding. Allan remarked how the legislation adds greater bed capacity to the state prison system, increases rehabilitation services in the system, and funds 16,000 beds in re-entry facilities where offenders will have access to job training, counseling, hOUSIng placement and more. Tehachapi Mayor Ed Grimes, the president the Association of California Cities Allied with Prisons, spoke about the burden California's 478 cities would face if this many inmates are released and the total population is capped. 2